The parents of a missing child don't matter.

[Brietta]

Give me one logical reason why I should admire the pair who are responsible for this case  ?

Did I ask you to "admire" any one?  Although it would be appropriate if you examined your conscience now and again as I am sure fixating on one or two odious posting phrases you use to denigrate the parents of a missing child cannot be good for you.

[Eleanor]

Okay.  Enough.  This is bordering on Libel.  Get back to The Topic.

[ShiningInLuz]

Would you kindly furnish us with some examples of these unturned stones?

Yup.  Did one today on the blog.

The two free mobiles that turned up on 4th May 2007 in Portimão could well contain a treasure trove of information.

This information could well point to guilt, or to innocence, or of course to neither.

David Payne's free mobile might well have been picked up Leicestershire Police, and be part of the SY phone analysis.  Or it may not.

The McCann's free mobile could point to, or to rule out, all sorts of vague broo-ha-ha around the case.

Rumour 1.  Gerry plants body in flowerbed of Urbanisation Melody.  UM is in a different cell on the network to Luz.  I have seen nothing in the PJ phone traffic analysis to place him in UM.

Rumour 2.  Gerry uses the Scenic to dispose of Madeleine's body in .... well take your pick on this one. Huge chunks of Portugal and Spain.  I have seen nothing in the PJ analysis to suggest this.

The main PJ analysis made an assumption - that any period of phone silence over 30 minutes was potentially significant.  This on the basis that such a time period allows travel to Burgau in the west, Almádena to the north west, and Oxiáxere, to the east.  And back again, whilst all the time looking like being in Luz.

If the traffic between two said mobiles establishes some weird diversion somewhere, it points to guilt.  If the traffic fills in some of the half hour gaps, it can increase the evidence of innocence.

It could do neither, and since I don't know where the McCanns free mobile ended up, I can at this time only speculate.

However, the McCanns know where that free mobile ended up.  It is just one unturned stone that could advance the investigation.  (And no, I don't know whether SY has had access to that phone.)

[G-Unit]

No need to be so stroppy!  I didn't ask for a list so how about just giving me one example of something they haven't told us that would make you doubt them less.

I'll give just one subject I would like answers to. Did Madeleine have a coloboma or not? If she did, was it medically diagnosed and tested. If she did not, why was it publicised when she disappeared?

[Eleanor]

Yup.  Did one today on the blog.

The two free mobiles that turned up on 4th May 2007 in Portimão could well contain a treasure trove of information.

This information could well point to guilt, or to innocence, or of course to neither.

David Payne's free mobile might well have been picked up Leicestershire Police, and be part of the SY phone analysis.  Or it may not.

The McCann's free mobile could point to, or to rule out, all sorts of vague broo-ha-ha around the case.

Rumour 1.  Gerry plants body in flowerbed of Urbanisation Melody.  UM is in a different cell on the network to Luz.  I have seen nothing in the PJ phone traffic analysis to place him in UM.

Rumour 2.  Gerry uses the Scenic to dispose of Madeleine's body in .... well take your pick on this one. Huge chunks of Portugal and Spain.  I have seen nothing in the PJ analysis to suggest this.

The main PJ analysis made an assumption - that any period of phone silence over 30 minutes was potentially significant.  This on the basis that such a time period allows travel to Burgau in the west, Almádena to the north west, and Oxiáxere, to the east.  And back again, whilst all the time looking like being in Luz.

If the traffic between two said mobiles establishes some weird diversion somewhere, it points to guilt.  If the traffic fills in some of the half hour gaps, it can increase the evidence of innocence.

It could do neither, and since I don't know where the McCanns free mobile ended up, I can at this time only speculate.

However, the McCanns know where that free mobile ended up.  It is just one unturned stone that could advance the investigation.  (And no, I don't know whether SY has had access to that phone.)

This is an interesting post.  But it isn't On Topic.

I will be removing Off Topic Posts from now on.

[Alfred R Jones]

I'll give just one subject I would like answers to. Did Madeleine have a coloboma or not? If she did, was it medically diagnosed and tested. If she did not, why was it publicised when she disappeared?

Madeleine clearly did have a noticeable mark in her eye which was used in publicity as a distinguishing mark, no mystery there.  Whether it was a coloboma or not has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on why or how she disappeared.  Her parents have already spoken about this at some length.  I'm bemused to hear that answers to the questions you posed above would make you doubt the McCanns less tbh.

[G-Unit]

Madeleine clearly did have a noticeable mark in her eye which was used in publicity as a distinguishing mark, no mystery there.  Whether it was a coloboma or not has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on why or how she disappeared.  Her parents have already spoken about this at some length.  I'm bemused to hear that answers to the questions you posed above would make you doubt the McCanns less tbh.

Whether it was a coloboma or not is very important. It was used as a distinguishing feature in posters and was mentioned on 'The Lancet' website. It was 'a good marketing ploy' according to her father, even at the risk of someone harming her or her eye as a result.

Coloboma's are a serious problem. A child with a coloboma has many check-ups to make sure their sight is OK. Other problems are associated with them also. After publicising the coloboma so much, the parents later told Piers Morgan that they hadn't made much of it because it was only a fleck. They even said it probably wasn't one after all.

Due to the medical ramifications a parent would know for sure whether a child had a coloboma or not. That's why the coloboma interests me. Madeleine either had one or she didn't, but the parents let everyone, including The Lancet, believe that she did have one. Why would they do that if she didn't? Why not be totally honest and say it was a small fleck at the beginning?

[Alfred R Jones]

Whether it was a coloboma or not is very important. It was used as a distinguishing feature in posters and was mentioned on 'The Lancet' website. It was 'a good marketing ploy' according to her father, even at the risk of someone harming her or her eye as a result.

Coloboma's are a serious problem. A child with a coloboma has many check-ups to make sure their sight is OK. Other problems are associated with them also. After publicising the coloboma so much, the parents later told Piers Morgan that they hadn't made much of it because it was only a fleck. They even said it probably wasn't one after all.

Due to the medical ramifications a parent would know for sure whether a child had a coloboma or not. That's why the coloboma interests me. Madeleine either had one or she didn't, but the parents let everyone, including The Lancet, believe that she did have one. Why would they do that if she didn't? Why not be totally honest and say it was a small fleck at the beginning?

Why not look at this from another perspective: why if they were involved in Madeleine's disappearance would they have any reason to lie about whether or not the fleck in her eye (which they chose to draw to the world's attention and which did actually exist) was a coloboma?  There is no logical reason, hence this is not an important issue in determining the facts of Madeleine's disappearance.  Now if you want to argue against this I feel a new thread may be in order as this is way off topic.

[G-Unit]

Why not look at this from another perspective: why if they were involved in Madeleine's disappearance would they have any reason to lie about whether or not the fleck in her eye (which they chose to draw to the world's attention and which did actually exist) was a coloboma?  There is no logical reason, hence this is not an important issue in determining the facts of Madeleine's disappearance.  Now if you want to argue against this I feel a new thread may be in order as this is way off topic.

The thread is about whether the parents of a missing child matter. My stance is that the parents of a stolen child matter because they have had a child stolen and must be frantic with worry about where she could be and what happened to her. Madeleine is a missing child though, and we don't know how she came to be missing. The parents decided she had been stolen but failed to convince everyone that this is what happened. In due course they became suspects in the investigation due to doubts about their story. One of the reasons why I have doubts is that they said she had a quite serious defect in her eye. They later changed this to a barely noticeable fleck, and denied publicising it. For me, this points to the parents being economical with the truth. Complete openness and honesty would have been more helpful to their cause. Why would they lie about the coloboma? I can think of a couple of reasons. It was a good marketing ploy, and any child without one could be automatically excluded.

[sadie]

They have given many interviews, but have only been asked difficult questions by one interviewer; Sandra Felgueiras. Each time she asked a difficult question the answer was either flippant or deflected, never answered seriously. They could start there, perhaps.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWyjVmxWzDY

Only an abservation, but how interesting "Felguiras".  Yet another Jewish / Hebrew name.

http://www.sephardim.com/html/translated_names_f.html

Virtually everyone in this case seems to have a Jewish bloodline.

Also the missing 7 children ... [not sure about Rene Hassee] .... they seem to have Jewish / Hebrew names

Madeleine BETH

[misty]

I find it very sad that the funding campaign set up recently to help with the personal expenses incurred by the parent of a missing British child has so far raised less than £3000, yet the ex-PJ officer who was the author of his own downfall has attracted over £25000 in hard cash.
Why is Amaral worth more to the GBP than Kerry Needham?

[sadie]

I find it very sad that the funding campaign set up recently to help with the personal expenses incurred by the parent of a missing British child has so far raised less than £3000, yet the ex-PJ officer who was the author of his own downfall has attracted over £25000 in hard cash.
Why is Amaral worth more to the GBP than Kerry Needham?

 
And a bent cop at that.

One wonders why.

[pegasus]

I find it very sad that the funding campaign set up recently to help with the personal expenses incurred by the parent of a missing British child has so far raised less than £3000, yet the ex-PJ officer who was the author of his own downfall has attracted over £25000 in hard cash.
Why is Amaral worth more to the GBP than Kerry Needham?

If a Senior Investigating Officer had been removed from solving that Greek case and was then sued by a parent and attempts made to destroy him, I would donate to his defence.

[misty]

If a Senior Investigating Officer had been removed from solving that Greek case and was then sued by a parent and attempts made to destroy him, I would donate to his defence.

You only sue if there is good reason to sue.
The Needhams would have been pursuing the Greek police authority rather than any one individual, don't you think?

[pegasus]

You only sue if there is good reason to sue.
The Needhams would have been pursuing the Greek police authority rather than any one individual, don't you think?

What I mean is KN has never sued the greek police SIO who investigated her case.